TL/CL system needs way more native lens

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

There are the Heliar 10 and 12 mm lenses. Not fast, but I find it very hard to make a case for a fast superwide lens, especially on APS. DOF is from your toes to the horizon at any aperture, camera shake hardly a concern and you can always crank up the ISO. The only things lens speed would add are bulk, weight and bragging rights. In fact, somebody explain to me what sense AF makes on a 10mm lens anyway.

That makes that there is probably no market for a ?000 Euro Leica lens...

 

3 hours ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

Jaap, I understand what you are saying, right now I am using a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 from my Nikon on my CL, it has taken a while to learn to manual focus it. Would serve as a set to do interiors, but I would prefer a prime. The 11-23 is on my list and would do, but with these times, just not in my budget. 

I have the Voigtländer 10mm. It is a fantastic performer in every respect. Focusing it is very, very easy ... just use the focusing scale. There's virtually no point in trying to focus it through the viewfinder unless you're within 4-5 feet of your subject, and then the focus peaking aid is helpful if you're doing your critical focus wide open. It performs best at f/8 to f/11, and stopping down even just the one stop to f/8 means the in-focus zone is expanded to cover any minor focusing error. 

I have not found f/5.6 to be any limitation with this lens, given that the CL sensor is so capable at ISO 3200-6400. If you're trying to get shallow DoF, well, forget a hyper wide lens in the first place on a small format like APS-C (which is one of the fundamental reasons why I bought the Hasselblad 907x and XCD 21mm lens ... for shallow DoF on an ultra wide FoV, you need a bigger capture format), imo. 

G

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[nicci78]

Isn't that weird to read people saying that it is ok for Leica to stop releasing any new TL lenses ?

More choice is always better for everybody. Or did I miss something ?

You are just telling Leica, that it is okay to rest on its laurels after releasing a non impressive lens selection.

More lenses = more people on board supporting CL & TL lineup. If sales drop, Leica will stop supporting it. We may get a CL2 in near future, but CL3 will be unlikely. 

Are you so afraid, that someone tell the truth about the lack of lens situation ? Afraid to see the value of your beloved CL or TL2 dropped ? 

Aren't you angry that Leica stopped releasing, for ages, any new firmware update for the TL2 ? Dropping support after only 18 months of sales is not right at all. TL2 owners should be furious. 

In the french forum Summilux.net, I stopped counting people asking for a Summilux-TL 50-56-60mm f/1.4. They are thinking that Summilux-M 50mm did not suit well with CL. Mainly for focusing issue. Its short focus throw makes it difficult to use with mirrorless cameras. And I am thinking the same. I switch to Summicron-R 50mm f/2. Mainly for its longer focus throw, making it more precise with CL, at the expense of slower focusing. 

So to sum up, the ideal, would be a Summilux-TL 56mm. Or a 53mm (if Leica wants to retain the classic Summilux-R 80mm equivalent) Leica offered the choice of fast 75, 80 or 90mm lenses in M, SL and R mount. Why not for the TL one ? 

[Peters]

3 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Isn't that weird to read people saying that it is ok for Leica to stop releasing any new TL lenses ?

More choice is always better for everybody. Or did I miss something ?

You are just telling Leica, that it is okay to rest on its laurels after releasing a non impressive lens selection.

More lenses = more people on board supporting CL & TL lineup. If sales drop, Leica will stop supporting it. We may get a CL2 in near future, but CL3 will be unlikely. 

Are you so afraid, that someone tell the truth about the lack of lens situation ? Afraid to see the value of your beloved CL or TL2 dropped ? 

Aren't you angry that Leica stopped releasing, for ages, any new firmware update for the TL2 ? Dropping support after only 18 months of sales is not right at all. TL2 owners should be furious. 

In the french forum Summilux.net, I stopped counting people asking for a Summilux-TL 50-56-60mm f/1.4. They are thinking that Summilux-M 50mm did not suit well with CL. Mainly for focusing issue. Its short focus throw makes it difficult to use with mirrorless cameras. And I am thinking the same. I switch to Summicron-R 50mm f/2. Mainly for its longer focus throw, making it more precise with CL, at the expense of slower focusing. 

So to sum up, the ideal, would be a Summilux-TL 56mm. Or a 53mm (if Leica wants to retain the classic Summilux-R 80mm equivalent) Leica offered the choice of fast 75, 80 or 90mm lenses in M, SL and R mount. Why not for the TL one ? 

Defensive comments are to be expected on a Leica - dedicated forum, partly due to brand loyalty and partly due to the way a lot of Leica shooters tend to shoot. Find a focal length that you're comfortable with and stick with it. 

That's exactly how I shoot the M, but I picked up the CL because I wanted to add a bit more spice to life - specifically the super wide, telephoto and fast portrait lenses which are not all that practical on a rangefinder. 

The 11-23 is excellent, but I would love a  75mm or 90mm Summilux, APSC sized lens. If they came out with one of those I'd keep my mouth shut! 

FYI I use the Summilux-M 50 on my CL. There's a smidgen of softness at 1.4 but it's still nice. Focussing is not too bad and it makes for a very compact 75mm F2 equivalent set. 

 

 

 

 

[jaapv]

Nobody said Leica shouldn't release new lenses. People have said that they don't see a need for new lenses, which is something quite different. Leica has their own market research and will make their decisions accordingly.

One might suggest, that given that there is such a high demand in France, Agenieux could build such a lens.😝

[cp995]

It ist the same situation as with all other APS-C manufactorers (which do have  FF bodies within their portfolio)
Have a look at Canon (EF-S, EOS-M), Nikon and Sony.
They all fokus on FF and only support APS-C with a minimum setup of lenses.
There are a lot of FF L-Mount lenses available and there will be more in the future, so there ist no reason for whining.
Ask Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica - You will get the same answer everywhere!

Edited May 19, 2020 by cp995

[jaapv]

And all for the same reason - the market for such lenses is too small to be profitable. We cannot get past the fact that an APS-C camera, as good as it may be, is a convenience camera - travel, around the house, grab-and -go. 
Serious photographers will tend to use dedicated tools for specific use: Shallow DOF separation? Medium format, at worst full-frame with 1.4 or faster lens.
Wide-angle to extreme wide-angle? Full-frame or larger format on high resolution sensors.

Etc...

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by jaapv

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

APS-C & m4/3 are +85% of the market 
Fujifilm has a whole complete set of APS-C sensor. 
Panasonic and Olympus has also developed a very nice small sensor set of optics. 
Pentax also design a full set of APS-C lenses. Only going to full frame recently. 
 

There are only Canon et Nikon who are thinking that half ass APS-C line of optics is okay. But guess what they are wrong. That’s why Fuji and m4/3 bite them in the ass. It is not only the mirrorless thing. It is the lens selection. 
 

Sony is in a kind of middle ground. But at least they have third party to cover the missing part. 
 

Sigma CEO stated recently that they were surprised by the success of they DC DN Art line for mirrorless APS-C. Being there most successful line ! 

I think that most manufacturers have been silly to snob APS-C buyers. And trying to convinced them to go full frame. Guess what ? That’s exactly Fujifilm’s dream : all these upset customers will come to them. 
 

2 and half years ago. Just on the road to buy the CL. I was thinking that it is the biggest mistake of my life. But I voted the confidence for Leica to bring one day the missing lenses. But guess what I was wrong. Those never came and certainly never will now. 
I should have listen to my conscience and go buy Fujifilm instead. At least they got everything you can wish. They even got their stupid X-Trans editing problem solved with their partnership with CaptureOne. 

I still love the CL. Still love using R lenses with it. But I hate the native lens selection. Only 4 worthy lenses ? That is not a lot at all. 
 

Of course we can debate all day long if TL 18, 23 and 18-56 are good or not. But the fact that so many people do not like them after owning them. Should give you the hint that they may be adequate. But not stellar by any means. And not stellar in Leica world = trash. Why spend thousand for mundane stuff ? 

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by nicci78

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, nicci78 said:

Of course we can debate all day long if TL 18, 23 and 18-56 are good or not. But the fact that so many people do not like them after owning them. Should give you the hint that they may be adequate. But not stellar by any means. And not stellar in Leica world = trash. Why spend thousand for mundane stuff ? 

 

You only need to read the forum to find that this is complete nonsense. I would be hard put to name more than half a dozen forum members who "do not like them" 

[Rick in CO]

43 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

APS-C & m4/3 are +85% of the market 
Fujifilm has a whole complete set of APS-C sensor. 
Panasonic and Olympus has also developed a very nice small sensor set of optics. 
Pentax also design a full set of APS-C lenses. Only going to full frame recently. 
 

There are only Canon et Nikon who are thinking that half ass APS-C line of optics is okay. But guess what they are wrong. That’s why Fuji and m4/3 bite them in the ass. It is not only the mirrorless thing. It is the lens selection. 
 

Sony is in a kind of middle ground. But at least they have third party to cover the missing part. 
 

Sigma CEO stated recently that they were surprised by the success of they DC DN Art line for mirrorless APS-C. Being there most successful line ! 

I think that most manufacturers have been silly to snob APS-C buyers. And trying to convinced them to go full frame. Guess what ? That’s exactly Fujifilm’s dream : all these upset customers will come to them. 
 

2 and half years ago. Just on the road to buy the CL. I was thinking that it is the biggest mistake of my life. But I voted the confidence for Leica to bring one day the missing lenses. But guess what I was wrong. Those never came and certainly never will now. 
I should have listen to my conscience and go buy Fujifilm instead. At least they got everything you can wish. They even got their stupid X-Trans editing problem solved with their partnership with CaptureOne. 

I still love the CL. Still love using R lenses with it. But I hate the native lens selection. Only 4 worthy lenses ? That is not a lot at all. 
 

Of course we can debate all day long if TL 18, 23 and 18-56 are good or not. But the fact that so many people do not like them after owning them. Should give you the hint that they may be adequate. But not stellar by any means. And not stellar in Leica world = trash. Why spend thousand for mundane stuff ? 

 

 

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

And all for the same reason - the market for such lenses is too small to be profitable. We cannot get past the fact that an APS-C camera, as good as it may be, is a convenience camera - travel, around the house, grab-and -go. 
Serious photographers will tend to use dedicated tools for specific use: Shallow DOF separation? Medium format, at worst full-frame with 1.4 or faster lens.
Wide-angle to extreme wide-angle? Full-frame or larger format on high resolution sensors.

Etc...

 

I completely agree with the above two posts.  APS-C is a great travel camera solution, but only if the camera size is smaller than that of full-frame cameras.  Why would one want to buy a X-Pro, unless autofocus is an overriding criterium (but without image stabilization?) when it is the size of an M or Q camera?  The Leica APS-C lens line-up needs attention.  Aside from huge prime lenses, the 23mm f2 being the exception but I was not impressed with the one I tested, the zoom lenses are just OK by Leica standards IMHO.  Leica almost has it with the Panasonic D-Lux 7, as 4/3 is pretty good, but APS-C would be better even in that size camera.  Fuji does have the best OEM lens line so far, and if they  would bring out a travel camera like the X100V with a moderate range f2.8 zoom lens or if Leica would similarly update their X-Vario camera, I would be a buyer.  

Alternatively, I wonder why Zeiss hasn't made any of their autofocus lenses in the TL mount for APS-C?  Seems like an opportunity which might not require significant re-tooling?

[ramarren]

5 hours ago, nicci78 said:

...

More choice is always better for everybody. Or did I miss something ?

...

Yes, I think you're missing something. There's an old adage in the art world: "Constraints inspire creativity." More choice does not always improve, is not always unequivocally "better." 

And I've never said that Leica shouldn't produce more lenses of superlative quality. I've said that I don't see the need at all for my uses because I don't need more lenses. Leica should do what they believe will net a good audience response (sales, to be specific) and sufficient profit to be worth doing. 

The FourThirds format marketplace is where lots of very very fast lenses have been developed. Why? Because the manufacturers supplying FourThirds format camera equipment have no other format camera line and need fast lenses for their offerings. Thus there's a market for Panasonic, Olympus, and Voigtländer to make some extremely fast lenses across the focal length range. All the other manufacturers (Leica included) produce both APS-C and Full Frame format cameras, and in nearly all cases the niche lenses (faster than f/2 primes, and f/2.8 zooms) are always designed for the FF format because they can be used on BOTH format bodies, and thereby be profitable. Leica is doing the same with the SL and TL lens lines. 

It costs millions of dollars to design and build production for lens offerings. Unless there will be sales to support that R&D investment and return a useful amount of profit, there's no point to doing it, and my take is that a lot of people see the APS-C cameras as the amateur models, want relatively inexpensive, light, and small, which runs counter to the costs, size, and resulting price of ultra-fast prime lenses. (I don't happen to agree with the notion that the APS-C cameras are only "lower end" just as I don't agree with the notion that FourThirds format is "not professional". I think both notions are bespeak a narrow-minded perspective, contrary to an objective evaluation of photographic functionality.) 

Leica must do what generates profit to stay in business, which is not necessarily going to be satisfying to every individual's dream desires. 

G

[jaapv]

9 minutes ago, ramarren said:

The FourThirds format marketplace is where lots of very very fast lenses have been developed. Why? Because the manufacturers supplying FourThirds format camera equipment have no other format camera line and need fast lenses for their offerings. Thus there's a market for Panasonic, Olympus, and Voigtländer to make some extremely fast lenses across the focal length range.

Not only that, but MFT has always had - and still has- high-ISO issues. That is the reason they have to design very fast lenses and highly effective stabilisation systems. It has nothing to do with the creativity of the photographer.

[lct]

17 minutes ago, ramarren said:

Leica must do what generates profit to stay in business, which is not necessarily going to be satisfying to every individual's dream desires. 

+1

[jaapv]

Whatever else, I have taken one or two photographs that I consider among my best with this grotty system and its second-rate lenses... 🥴

[Ko.Fe.]

It is odd business model of Leica. To sell nothing special kit lens for price which turns off 99% potential buyers. What kind of business model is this? To keep most of potential buyers off. How profitable is this?

I like TL2 high ISO capabilities, but thousand of dollars for nothing special and not expensive to make crop sensor lenses just because Leica Camera AG wants to make profit on overpriced lenses is not something I'm willing to support.

Sure Canon, Nikon and Fuji offerings are not giving prestige and pleasure to own, but to me photos are still more important. 

[ramarren]

18 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Not only that, but MFT has always had - and still has- high-ISO issues. That is the reason they have to design very fast lenses and highly effective stabilisation systems. It has nothing to do with the creativity of the photographer.

I would state that slightly differently, since I used FourThirds professionally for about five years of my photography business. FourThirds format sensors cannot achieve the same dynamic range and noise level as larger format sensors of the same pixel density and design ... This will ALWAYS be true, it's simple physics, and fast lenses do help in this regard.

But the primary reason why FourThirds manufacturers have concentrated to a great degree on fast lenses is for large photographic reasons... because it's only a niche of photographic uses that relies entirely on "high ISO" setting ... and those reasons are focus zone control. Because of the smaller format and complementary focal lengths required, you need 2-stop faster lenses to have control of focus zone equivalent to what Full Frame cameras offer. Otherwise, you end up having to use longer lenses, with all the differences in perspective and shooting facilities that implies. Having a 25mm f/1.4 normal lens—that actually performs well at f/1.4 and is thus quite a bit pricier—nets you the capability that the average 50mm f/1.4 lens (which generally doesn't not perform as well until you stop it down to f/2.8) does on FF format. 

This illustrates some of the trade-offs. MOST users with FourThirds format cameras do a lot of fine photography with f/4 lenses, which are far less expensive and don't offer quite the same level of control as the ultra-fast lenses, but they offer good quality and practical utility instead at a lower price.

G

[Sjz]

While I respect other people's views, my perspective is:

I have 3 TL lens and I really like them.  The 18 because of its size, the 18-56 because of the convenience and quality and the 55-135 (APO) because of the range and the superb quality.  Those 3 meet my needs and I can work around the limitations of not having a really wide or particularly fast lens.

If I am going to supplement the above, I would probably go for a fast wide angle M Mount lens, as it would be an appropriate size, probably a smililar cost (and would work on a M if I ever buy one).

Through the L mount we already have access to a huge range of lens at a range of ££s. 

One thing i storngly believe is any TL lens Leica bring out should be in keeping with the format of the CL / TL otherwise we could go with the Sigma / Panasonic / Leica full frame lens.

I wish everyoine success in shooting with them as they slowly emerge.

[jaapv]

@Ramarran:
Yes - of course, and that is mainly the point I wanted to make, but in general, fast lenses help to keep ISO down, which is highly desirable on sensors with a limited ISO capability.
I would submit from experience that focus zone control will always be a weak point of the MFT system. Personally I found it more effective to either use a longer lens or move in closer. BTW, the Summilux 25 is  quite an impressive lens on MFT, not to mention the Nocticron.

[mike3996]

I don't own SL/TL/CL lenses/cameras and I don't know what the market thinks but I personally view the TL series of lenses interesting and sufficient. When one considers it might complement one's M or SL lens collection.

For example my main system is M and for M I have my selection of primes, from 21 to 75. Sometimes it would be cool to leave 21 on M and take a 70-200 equivalent on a second body, cover my range that way. For these sorts of purposes I see the CL (or TL2 actually) more than enough, and the three zooms plentiful.

 

Perhaps Leica has arrived at the same conclusion, that the place of the system is primarily in a supporting role?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Gregm61]

Yep, the two main lenses I use with my M262 are the 21mm SEM and 35mm FLE. The 11-23mm f3.5-4.5 covers those two equivalent fields of view when I'm using the CL, as well as the equivalent of the 18mm SEM (wider actually), 24mm Elmar and 28mm Elmarit, all in one lens. Obviously not as fast as the 35 FLE but way more versatile, no lens changes required and the sensor in the CL handles higher ISO values better than the one in the M262.

Throw in the 55-135mm and 90% or more of what I need is covered. I'll often carry the 35mm f1.4 and 60mm f2.8 TL lenses, or maybe just one of them with the two zooms, and there's little I am left wanting for.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Gregm61

[Peters]

I don't see why the CL can't be a professional camera. Image quality is stellar and many photojournalists use APSC. Fuji has even captured quite a few Magnum photographers. But to attract  more people to it you do need to expand the lens selection. And Leica has always been about the lenses. 

The M line up is fantastic. The S looks great (though I am no MF photographer) while the SL seems to be filling out well. It's a shame that APSC has lagged behind, especially when you consider great glass being Leica's pièce de résistance. 

My suspicion as to why this is the case is a) Leica's limited resources which is obviously focussed on the SL line and b) how they have somewhat boxed themselves into a tight situation with two contradictory philosophies of high quality lenses and small camera bodies. They could certainly do this with the M lenses (no AF, OIS, or electronics) but not with the TL lenses. And using SL lenses is a nice workaround if you're an SL shooter, but not for those who don't want to pay top dollar for a lens of which you would only use 75%. 

But let's see what happens. I'm sure Leica could make a relatively compact 90mm Lux...